[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200930151406.GM816047@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:14:06 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Maor Gottlieb <maorg@...dia.com>
CC: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
Roland Scheidegger <sroland@...are.com>,
"Tvrtko Ursulin" <tvrtko.ursulin@...el.com>,
VMware Graphics <linux-graphics-maintainer@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next v4 4/4] RDMA/umem: Move to allocate SG table
from pages
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 06:05:15PM +0300, Maor Gottlieb wrote:
> This is right only for the last iteration. E.g. in the first iteration in
> case that there are more pages (left_pages), then we allocate
> SG_MAX_SINGLE_ALLOC. We don't know how many pages from the second iteration
> will be squashed to the SGE from the first iteration.
Well, it is 0 or 1 SGE's. Check if the first page is mergable and
subtract one from the required length?
I dislike this sg_mark_end() it is something that should be internal,
IMHO.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists